Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Known proof methods such as diagonalization relativize an... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A proof of P ≠ NP is beyond the reach of currently known proof techniques.

    Known proof methods such as diagonalization relativize and therefore cannot separate P from NP.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    No other argument is better1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A proof of P ≠ NP is beyond the reach of currently known proof techniques.Approaches such as geometric complexity theory are still in need of substantial ...No currently known method is sufficient to yield the desired separation between ...

    Similar

    A method that relativizes to both A and B cannot separate P and NP, si...84%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...81%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...81%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would be expected to relati...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    For in this case a demonstration that \(\phi \not\in n\text{-}\sc{PROVABILITY}_{\mathsf{T}}\) (for a sufficiently large \(n\) and a sufficiently powerful \(\mathsf{T}\)) would be sufficient to show that we have no hope of ever comprehending a proof of \(\phi\) even if one were to exist. But now note that since \(n\text{-}\sc{PROVABILITY}_{\mathsf{T}} \in \textbf{NP}\), if it so happened that \(\textbf{P} = \textbf{NP}\) then the task of determining whether a mathematical formula is derivable in

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective